4 ms·
Japanese court rules that AI cannot be issued patents
- slowhadoken 2y agoAnd my love for Japanese culture continues uninterrupted.
- Kuinox 2y agoThe article doesn't say that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted.
- slowhadoken 2y agoIt would be hypocritical if it could.
- Kuinox 2y agoWhy ?
- slowhadoken 2y agoBecause “A.I.” scrapes real art. You can’t ignore copyright law and then enforce it when it benefits you.
- aeonik 2y agoA human brain also trains on copyrighted work. A human can also reproduce very realistic copies of things and can even pass things off as the "genuine" thing. We already have copyright law and counterfeit law for this. Even if AI doesn't work the same way as parts of the human brain, I don't understand what difference it makes, whether AI was involved in the production of work legally, morally, or philosophically.
- slowhadoken 2y agoFalse equivalency. Humans have consciousness, an LLM does not. An LLM is nothing like a human mind, it’s a stochastic parrot. Art, by definition, is made by a human.
- aeonik 2y agoI'm not equivocating them. I'm stating plainly: I don't see what differences between AI and human brains are relevant to the enforcement of copyright. What is fundamentally changed by an LLM with respect to these three thought frameworks?
- slowhadoken 2y agoYou are equivocating when you said “A human brain also trains on copyrighted work.” You’re stating foolishly, not plainly. Only an author, owner, or agent copyright something. LLMs are none of those. A person who uses an LLM to scrape art isn’t making art so they’re neither of the three either.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoThen the person using an LLM to produce something that infringes on cooyright is responsible. They better check for every produced output, whether it infringes, since they are not creating it by thinking themselves and coming to a solution, but are using a tool that stochastically regurgitates bits and pieces it has seen before. Not much credit is deserved.
- slowhadoken 2y agoBoth OpenAI and the user are infringing on the artist and neither are making art.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoIt is about time, that we get a solid framework for handling those and other cases. I would also argue, that models learned from publicly available data need to stay public as well.
- Kuinox 2y agoYou are the one ignoring copyright exception when it suits you. Fair use is a thing. Also you seems to misunderstand something, the article never stated you couldn't patent an AI output, simply that the AI itself cannot be the author.
- slowhadoken 2y agoFair use laws, if the country has them, don’t include profit. OpenAI, and other similar LLMs, are commercial products. “A.I.”, i.e., an LLM, can not make art therefore its output can not be patented and the algorithm can not be an author. You’re playing an ignorant semantic game.
- Kuinox 2y ago> Fair use laws, if the country has them, don’t include profit. It does. Oracle vs Google, Google copied Oracle's API, is considered fair use as last judgment. Music sampling is also fair use. Very popular and lucrative music's used samples of copyrighted material.
- slowhadoken 2y agoFalse equivalency. Oracle vs Google was over an open source Sun Microsystems API. And sampled music requires permission. Paying OpenAI to steal art for you isn’t some creative commons community.
- Kuinox 2y ago> And sampled music requires permission. Almost nobody ask for permission. I'd also like to point out that you said > Fair use laws, if the country has them, don’t include profit. And now you start to add a lot of conditions depending of that. Oracle vs Google isn't a "false equivalency" it's litteraly a fair use case, where the one who copied the original work did it for a commercial product.
- 2y ago
- pbhjpbhj 2y agoEssentially the story is JPO falls inline with IP Australia, EPO, UK IPO, USPTO, etc?, on the DABUS applications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DABUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DABUS. I think they may be the first to suggest in court that a different IP system might be used for AIs though?
- candiodari 2y agoIsn't this how the movie "the matrix" started?
- LeoPanthera 2y agoIt is similar to the plot of "The Second Renaissance", which is an animated prequel to The Matrix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix#The_Second_Renaissance_Part_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix#The_Second_Renai...
- beezlewax 2y agoRobots rights protests coming our way.
- Eisenstein 2y agoIt already exists: * http://www.chaair.org http://www.chaair.org
- croes 2y agoSo someone will just hide it's AI generated and gets the patent.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- vasco 2y agoYou can write patents and uncover things by using AI but you get the patent, not the AI. Like the way the typewriter or the computer don't get the patent instead of you just because you used them.
- Kuinox 2y agoThe article doesn't say that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted.
- Ekaros 2y agoIssue is not AI generated content getting patent, but AI being the named inventor. Which to me is reasonable as no AI has personhood. Using AI to generate patent is likely fine as long as that patent fills all other criteria.
- Kuinox 2y agoI see a lot of people commenting that have only read the title and misinterpreted it. The article state that AI cannot be the owner of a patent, it have to be a human.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kristopolous 2y agoDoesn't the legal fiction of corporations already provide essentially all the cover you need here? Can't you just umbrella things under it? I can't pretend to be a Japanese legal scholar but at the end of the day both an AI and corporation are just property.
- sumeruchat 2y agoYes but a corporation cannot be owned by AI
- kristopolous 2y agoSure. But I'm imagining the AI is property. It's like saying your LLC owns something. Can't you just put a thin legal wrapper around your AI and call it invention-station Inc or something and thus christen it with all the rights of corporations? If a company can own a computer and it can own software then it can certainly own what's produced by the software on the computer... I don't see how this in practice changes anything. It sounds like you can still do the thing with slightly different paperwork.
- LeoPanthera 2y agoI don’t know about Japan, but in the US, patents have to be issued to individuals and not corporations.